Bonilla v. McKee
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:25-cv-06957
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bonilla v. Thompson, Judge Hamilton dismissed multiple civil-rights cases with prejudice after finding no imminent danger and identifying legal barriers.
Steven Wayne Bonilla's multiple civil-rights cases were dismissed with prejudice and closed. The order also terminated pending motions and directed the clerk to return later documents submitted in those closed cases without filing them.
What happened
In Steven Wayne Bonilla v. Judge Jeffrey A. Thompson et al., Bonilla, a condemned state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple nearly identical civil-rights lawsuits. He named federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants and sought relief related to his conviction and the handling of other cases.
The court found that Bonilla could not proceed without paying the filing fees because he had previously been disqualified from that status and his complaints did not show that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. The court also said that, even if he could proceed without paying, the lawsuits were barred by several legal rules and decisions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and ordered that further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases be returned without filing.
The detailed version
- Bonilla v. McKee · No. 4:25-cv-06957
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Steven Wayne Bonilla, identified as a state prisoner and a condemned prisoner, filed multiple complaints without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. The complaints presented nearly identical claims and named various federal judges, state judges, and state courts as defendants. Bonilla sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his other state and federal cases.
The court also noted that Bonilla had a pending federal petition challenging his conviction with appointed counsel and was represented by counsel in state-court proceedings.
Filing-fee status and legal barriers
The court stated that Bonilla had previously been disqualified from proceeding without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he showed that he was facing imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed his complaints. The court found that the allegations did not show such imminent danger, so Bonilla could not proceed without paying the fees.
The court further stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the filing fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the rules and decisions cited in the order: Heck v. Humphrey, Younger v. Harris, Demos v. U.S. District Court, and Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The opinion did not provide a separate claim-by-claim analysis of those barriers.
Ruling
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Bonilla submitted in the closed cases.
The court additionally rejected any suggestion that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because of the repetitive and allegedly frivolous filings. The order states that Bonilla named Judge Hamilton as a defendant in three of the cases but made no specific allegations against her.
Disposition
The multiple cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the cases were closed. The opinion does not state that the court reached the underlying merits of Bonilla’s challenges to his conviction or to the handling of his other cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.